7th Heaven Forums

The CW (ended 2007)

OMG Mackenzie Rosman is....

  • Avatar of sallenj

    sallenj

    [21]Jun 16, 2008
    • member since: 04/19/08
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 2,156

    You're really clouding the issue here. Responding to something when it is thrown in your face is not being obsessed with it. The Bible is exceedingly clear on homosexuality, and it's not a matter of metaphors, but of unambiguous statements. And yes, actors and actresses have built their public images on the roles they played for a long time. Sharon Stone and Jennifer Anniston are perceived completely differently by the public directly because of what roles each is identified with. And what roles a person chooses to play do reflect something about that person. So it is not wrong to have opinions about them based on that.

    And have you ever noticed, it is almost always the young women who do this sort of thing? You don't ever see pictures of Brad Pitt kissing Matt Damon on the mouth in mock passionate clutch, just because he got drunk one night, or was acting silly. That's because it would ruin his image. So why do we excuse it when it's two women?

    To get back to the show, has it ever occured to you that in the entire 11 seasons of 7th Heaven, there was never a homosexual character? Nor a girl on girl kiss, even though that has become the fashionable thing in TV nowadays? And it wasn't because the show was "Squeaky clean" or avoided real life. It had a prostitute, an unwed mother, child abusers, suicides, racists, thieves, and any number of drunks. It didn't glamorize them. It didn't demonize them. Each one was shown as a person who had messed up their life, and the Camdens always tried to help them get back on track, or at least minimize the damage to others. It couldn't portray a homosexual that way, or someone would have screamed bloody murder. And it wasn't going to glamorize them either, so it never dealt with it. The show had a moral universe, and girls kissing girls was out of bounds in that universe.

    For those of us who valued the show partly because it approached real life situatons from a moral center, for Mackenzie to go directly counter to that was disappointing. It does affect out perception of her, and rightfully so. If you can't see that, at least grant those of us that do the same tolerance for our opinions that you are asking for her actions.

    Oh, and just to clarify, I never said that Mackenzie Rosman was a homosexual. She was, however, engaged in quasi-homosexual behaviour. And as a public figure, when what she does becomes public, it is perfectly legit to comment on it.

    And yes, I get out a lot.

    Edited on 06/16/2008 2:34am
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Naley_Tvfan

    Naley_Tvfan

    [22]Jun 16, 2008
    • member since: 10/03/06
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 263
    Jon_MW_14 wrote:
    sallenj wrote:

    You may not want to get into it, but I am going to take one stab at it, then I'm done. I think it was Lucy who said, "I have a special place in my heart for teenage girls. I think I used to be one." I was a teenage guy once, and I never went around kissing other guys. I have sisters too, and nieces and female cousins, and none of them kisses girls. Neither did any of my girlfriends. Some of them have their own eccentricities, but not that. To act like this is somehow now normal is to misuse the word "normal."

    No, I don't get disappointed over "every goofing off thing teens do." Most things celebs do these days don't surprise me. A sex tape of Paris Hilton for intance is no big whoop. A sex tape of Beverly Mitchell on the other hand, would be disappointing, because we expect decency from her. That's what she has given us. The same would be true of Melissa Gilbert, or someone else of that caliber. I'm sorry, but I expected more from Mack. That's why I'm disappointed. Maybe in this day and age, it's asking too much from actors and actresses to even bother to pretend they have any morals. That doesn't mean we have to endorse it or think that it is okay or that it is "normal." It's too bad you don't see that.

    I disagree with you. I am a teenage guy, though I never kissed another guy before, I know that most of the guys and girls at my school goof around all the time It's all just good fun. It's normal.

    I agree with him. I always hear stories about girls making out with other girls here, though in most of those stories they were doing it because they were drunk.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of VGFreak8

    VGFreak8

    [23]Jun 16, 2008
    • member since: 11/15/06
    • level: 53
    • rank: Commander in Chief
    • posts: 5,794
    sallenj wrote:

    You're really clouding the issue here. Responding to something when it is thrown in your face is not being obsessed with it. The Bible is exceedingly clear on homosexuality, and it's not a matter of metaphors, but of unambiguous statements. And yes, actors and actresses have built their public images on the roles they played for a long time. Sharon Stone and Jennifer Anniston are perceived completely differently by the public directly because of what roles each is identified with. And what roles a person chooses to play do reflect something about that person. So it is not wrong to have opinions about them based on that.

    And have you ever noticed, it is almost always the young women who do this sort of thing? You don't ever see pictures of Brad Pitt kissing Matt Damon on the mouth in mock passionate clutch, just because he got drunk one night, or was acting silly. That's because it would ruin his image. So why do we excuse it when it's two women?

    To get back to the show, has it ever occured to you that in the entire 11 seasons of 7th Heaven, there was never a homosexual character? Nor a girl on girl kiss, even though that has become the fashionable thing in TV nowadays? And it wasn't because the show was "Squeaky clean" or avoided real life. It had a prostitute, an unwed mother, child abusers, suicides, racists, thieves, and any number of drunks. It didn't glamorize them. It didn't demonize them. Each one was shown as a person who had messed up their life, and the Camdens always tried to help them get back on track, or at least minimize the damage to others. It couldn't portray a homosexual that way, or someone would have screamed bloody murder. And it wasn't going to glamorize them either, so it never dealt with it. The show had a moral universe, and girls kissing girls was out of bounds in that universe.

    For those of us who valued the show partly because it approached real life situatons from a moral center, for Mackenzie to go directly counter to that was disappointing. It does affect out perception of her, and rightfully so. If you can't see that, at least grant those of us that do the same tolerance for our opinions that you are asking for her actions.

    Oh, and just to clarify, I never said that Mackenzie Rosman was a homosexual. She was, however, engaged in quasi-homosexual behaviour. And as a public figure, when what she does becomes public, it is perfectly legit to comment on it.

    And yes, I get out a lot.



    Amen!! I completely agree!!!!!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of OneAmanda2

    OneAmanda2

    [24]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 04/26/08
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 297
    VGFreak8 wrote:
    sallenj wrote:

    You're really clouding the issue here. Responding to something when it is thrown in your face is not being obsessed with it. The Bible is exceedingly clear on homosexuality, and it's not a matter of metaphors, but of unambiguous statements. And yes, actors and actresses have built their public images on the roles they played for a long time. Sharon Stone and Jennifer Anniston are perceived completely differently by the public directly because of what roles each is identified with. And what roles a person chooses to play do reflect something about that person. So it is not wrong to have opinions about them based on that.

    And have you ever noticed, it is almost always the young women who do this sort of thing? You don't ever see pictures of Brad Pitt kissing Matt Damon on the mouth in mock passionate clutch, just because he got drunk one night, or was acting silly. That's because it would ruin his image. So why do we excuse it when it's two women?

    To get back to the show, has it ever occured to you that in the entire 11 seasons of 7th Heaven, there was never a homosexual character? Nor a girl on girl kiss, even though that has become the fashionable thing in TV nowadays? And it wasn't because the show was "Squeaky clean" or avoided real life. It had a prostitute, an unwed mother, child abusers, suicides, racists, thieves, and any number of drunks. It didn't glamorize them. It didn't demonize them. Each one was shown as a person who had messed up their life, and the Camdens always tried to help them get back on track, or at least minimize the damage to others. It couldn't portray a homosexual that way, or someone would have screamed bloody murder. And it wasn't going to glamorize them either, so it never dealt with it. The show had a moral universe, and girls kissing girls was out of bounds in that universe.

    For those of us who valued the show partly because it approached real life situatons from a moral center, for Mackenzie to go directly counter to that was disappointing. It does affect out perception of her, and rightfully so. If you can't see that, at least grant those of us that do the same tolerance for our opinions that you are asking for her actions.

    Oh, and just to clarify, I never said that Mackenzie Rosman was a homosexual. She was, however, engaged in quasi-homosexual behaviour. And as a public figure, when what she does becomes public, it is perfectly legit to comment on it.

    And yes, I get out a lot.



    Amen!! I completely agree!!!!!


    I agree as well. You couldn't have put it any better.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MatLu

    MatLu

    [25]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 01/23/05
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 123
    If she was kissing a guy in the manner, would any of you guys and gals have a problem with it?

    As for the Bible, the Bible also justifies slavery. So unless you believe slavery is A-OK, I think it is fair to say that not everything in the Bible is the 100% word of God.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of sallenj

    sallenj

    [26]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 04/19/08
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 2,156

    That's exactly the point. If she was kissing a guy that way, no one would bat an eyelash. But she wasn't, which is why we're talking about it.

    And no, the Bible does NOT endorse slavery. That is a canard that is always thrown out eventually in this context, and it is simply not true. The Bible records when people owned slaves, the same as it records polygamy (more than one wife) and other things people did. This is not an endorsement. As a matter of fact, the Bible: restricted slavery, mandated that slaves be freed if they were mistreated, and freed all slaves every seven years. And that is just in the OLD Testament. It also gave all men a common ancestor, making them equal, and said that all men were made in the image of God, giving them dignity. In the New Testament, the only example is Onesimus in the book of Philemon. He was a slave who ran away from his master. Paul sent him back, but told his former owner not to treat him as a slave anymore, but as a "brother", ie, an equal. So, it is not true that the Bible endorses slavery. It does not, unless, restrictions, and provisions for freedom constitute an endorsement. Besides, wasn't the Exodus the largest slave freeing in History? And it was instituted by God!

    I really wish people would do some minor research before they repeat these silly statements.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MatLu

    MatLu

    [27]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 01/23/05
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 123
    I didn't say it endorsed slavery, I said it justified it. Since you changed my wording, I'm guessing you can't argue against the justification argument. If you are regulating slavery, you are intrinsically justifying it. There is no getting around that. The fact that it laid out laws and procedures for slavery instead of outright saying "Slavery is sin. Free all slaves." is very telling. That's just like saying "Slavery is evil... but if you are going to keep men and women in servitude against their will, please follow these rules..."
    Edited on 07/01/2008 4:56pm
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of sallenj

    sallenj

    [28]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 04/19/08
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 2,156

    Now you're arguing semantics. "Endorse" means "To give approval of or support to." "Justify" means "to prove to be just, right or valid." It's a dinstiction without a difference.

    And, no, the Bible doesn't "justify" salvery either. That is, it doesn't set out to show that it is right or just. As I argued in my last post, it sets down a philosophical case against it, and certain restrictions if you practice it. And no, setting restictions on something does not "intrinsically" prove that it is right or just.

    You will be hard pressed to find a Biblical injunction directly prohibiting polygamy, for instance. And, yes, there are regulations in the old testament for what to do if you have more than one wife. This does not justify the practice. It seeks to curb it. yet anyone who reads very far knows that the Bible advocates one wife. It is a strange kind of logic when restrictions against something become a case in favor of it.

    The central point I think you are missing in your semantics is that all slaves were set free in the Bible. How that becomes a justification in any way for keeping them, is up to you to explain. The Bible does not justify slavery. Or polygamy.

    Not that your argument says beans about the subject of this thread.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MatLu

    MatLu

    [29]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 01/23/05
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 123
    sallenj wrote:
    The central point I think you are missing in your semantics is that all slaves were set free in the Bible. How that becomes a justification in any way for keeping them, is up to you to explain.>
    Lets see:
    1. Slavery for 7 years is still slavery.
    2. Female slaves remained slaves forever.

    Pretty simple to explain really.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of -Master_K-

    -Master_K-

    [30]Jul 1, 2008
    • member since: 06/15/05
    • level: 37
    • rank: Cylon
    • posts: 2,049
    sallenj wrote:

    Now you're arguing semantics. "Endorse" means "To give approval of or support to." "Justify" means "to prove to be just, right or valid." It's a dinstiction without a difference.

    And, no, the Bible doesn't "justify" salvery either. That is, it doesn't set out to show that it is right or just. As I argued in my last post, it sets down a philosophical case against it, and certain restrictions if you practice it. And no, setting restictions on something does not "intrinsically" prove that it is right or just.

    You will be hard pressed to find a Biblical injunction directly prohibiting polygamy, for instance. And, yes, there are regulations in the old testament for what to do if you have more than one wife. This does not justify the practice. It seeks to curb it. yet anyone who reads very far knows that the Bible advocates one wife. It is a strange kind of logic when restrictions against something become a case in favor of it.

    The central point I think you are missing in your semantics is that all slaves were set free in the Bible. How that becomes a justification in any way for keeping them, is up to you to explain. The Bible does not justify slavery. Or polygamy.

    Not that your argument says beans about the subject of this thread.

    Anyways back to Mackenzie... the point is, she answers to someone much higher than you and I so reserve judgement for the right person, alright? Don't condemn her like you're 'sin-less?'. For now, you should be there for her because you were a fan of her work.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ktfahel

    ktfahel

    [31]Jul 2, 2008
    • member since: 07/19/07
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 1,856

    One (I hope) final note on Slavery in the Bible:

    In most circumstances, slavery in the Bible isn't the same as slavery a la Civil War. People often sold themselves into "slavery" to pay off a huge debt or because they couldn't afford to feed their families any other way. It was more like an employee, in a sense.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of sallenj

    sallenj

    [32]Jul 3, 2008
    • member since: 04/19/08
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 2,156

    Ktfahel is right about Biblical slavery being different than Civil War era slavery. Also, there was provision for female slaves to be freed also. But again, you are arguing technicalities. It should be obvious to any fair minded person that the Bible does not justify or endorse slavery. Since you can't deal with the facts of the case, you are resorting to semantics and technicalities. Those are good debate tactics, but they are really just dodging the issue.

    To get back to Mackenzie Rosman: Yes, she is accountable to someone much higher than you or I. Let's call this someone "God." If "God" has made a declaration that some things are right and some things are wrong (And He has.), then it is NOT judgemental to apply God's standard to people's behavour. Just because none of us meet God's standard does not mean that it is irrelevant and everybody can just do whatever they want. Murder is objectively wrong. Rape is objectively wrong. Homosexuality, according to God (And He is the only one who gets to set the standard.), is objectively wrong. Saying so is NOT being judgemental.

    More to the point, 7th Heaven was based on a Christian pastor's family, and traditional (Biblical) morals were upheld and encouraged on the show. What Mack did flew directly in the face of that value system. For those of us who enjoyed the show partly because of the values it embraced, her actions were a disappointment. That is all I am saying, and have been saying throughout.

    And yes, I will still be a fan of Mack, but this does diminish my ardor some.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of VGFreak8

    VGFreak8

    [33]Jul 5, 2008
    • member since: 11/15/06
    • level: 53
    • rank: Commander in Chief
    • posts: 5,794
    Wow, I missed a big debate! I won't get into it because this is a Mackenzie thread. All I will say is sallenj makes a great point on both matters and I couldn't have said it better myself.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of LuckyTaly

    LuckyTaly

    [34]Jul 8, 2008
    • member since: 09/29/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 155

    Wow, sallenj, how impressive your argument is. I completely agree, by the way.

    Mackenzie Rosman is a great actress, Its saddening to me that those pictures are real.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of huh920

    huh920

    [35]Jul 13, 2008
    • member since: 11/26/07
    • level: 21
    • rank: Snagglepuss
    • posts: 5,169
    I honestly do not see it as that big of a deal. I am the same age as Mackenzie and I am in college so I see it everyday. I understand why people are making it into one though. Its the same reason why people made a big deal out of Lisa Bonet's (Denise Huxtable) nude pictures a big deal. You are not suppose to act on a show like the Cosby Show or 7th Heaven and then go out and do something wild. It just does not look good.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MaryVenegas

    MaryVenegas

    [36]Oct 31, 2012
    • member since: 10/31/12
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 1

    Alright, so we are judging Mackenzie Rosman kissing another girl because she portrayed a character in a television show? First of all, it is called acting, second, if we want to judge her in the context of her role in 7th heaven, shouldn't we also consider how her "family" in the show may have responded to her kissing another woman? If we've learned anything from that family, they would love and accept her no matter who she loved, yes, they would have been disappointed in the fact that she made such a distasteful public display, but they would be just as disappoint had the same display been made with a guy. If you are going to judge her based on the context of a character she played, you should look from her family's perspective and not your own. You can't hold her accountable in one context and then judge using a different context - don't behypocritical.


    P.S. If you spent less time bible pushing and using it to judge others, and more time using it to guide your ACTIONS in being a decent human being, the world might become bearable place to live in. I'm going to translate a piece or two of one favorite songs: Jesus es verbo no sustantivo (Jesus is a verb, not a noun)Jesus penso "me hare invisible para que todos mis hermanos dejen de estar hablando tanto de mi y se tiendan la mano" (Jesus thought "I'll make myself invisible so that all my brother stop talking so much about me and extend a hand to one another). Shut up and start DOING.

    Edited on 10/31/2012 10:57am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of sallenj

    sallenj

    [37]Nov 1, 2012
    • member since: 04/19/08
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 2,156

    MaryVenegas wrote:


    Alright, so we are judging Mackenzie Rosman kissing another girl because she portrayed a character in a television show? First of all, it is called acting, second, if we want to judge her in the context of her role in 7th heaven, shouldn't we also consider how her "family" in the show may have responded to her kissing another woman? If we've learned anything from that family, they would love and accept her no matter who she loved, yes, they would have been disappointed in the fact that she made such a distasteful public display, but they would be just as disappoint had the same display been made with a guy. If you are going to judge her based on the context of a character she played, you should look from her family's perspective and not your own. You can't hold her accountable in one context and then judge using a different context - don't behypocritical.


    P.S. If you spent less time bible pushing and using it to judge others, and more time using it to guide your ACTIONS in being a decent human being, the world might become bearable place to live in. I'm going to translate a piece or two of one favorite songs: Jesus es verbo no sustantivo (Jesus is a verb, not a noun)Jesus penso "me hare invisible para que todos mis hermanos dejen de estar hablando tanto de mi y se tiendan la mano" (Jesus thought "I'll make myself invisible so that all my brother stop talking so much about me and extend a hand to one another). Shut up and start DOING.




    If this deserved a reply, I'd give it one. However the "points" it raises have already been dealt with earlier in the thread. Besides, the thread is over 4 years old, and most of those involved have moved on to other pursuits.


    Finally, the author of the aboveentry ASSUMES without evidence that those writing against the display do not allow their Christianity to affect their actions. They have no basis for this assumption in fact. It's an assumption they make in spite of the evidence. In fact, it is that writer being judgemental, not those of us who believe in doing right. Then again, the author'scanards and libelshave already been debunked previously within the thread, so there's no point in covering them again.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.